Varieties of evidential shift

Natasha Korotkova [email protected]

University of California, Los Angeles

Sinn und Bedeutung 19 @ Universität Göttingen September 15, 2014

Natasha Korotkova (UCLA) Varieties of evidential shift SuB 19 @ Uni Göttingen 1 / 42 Introduction

Evidentiality Marking types of acquaintance with situation denoted by the ; information source in terms of e.g. Aikhenvald (2004) and WALS

Para-sha-n-mi. (1) Cuzco Quechua evidential paradigm (Faller, 2002, 3, ex.2a) a.I see [Direct] rain-Para-sha-n-prog-3-sidir. ‘It is raining, .’ b.I hear [Hearsay] rain-Para-sha-n-prog-3-chárep. ‘It is raining, .’ c.I gather [Conjectural] rain-prog-3-conj ‘It must be raining, .’ Natasha Korotkova (UCLA) Varieties of evidential shift SuB 19 @ Uni Göttingen 2 / 42 Introduction

Perspective shift: evidentials → Root declaratives: speaker Complements of attitude : speaker attitude tsut s-Lémya7 kw sqwemémn’ek ku7 s-Mary (2) St’át’imcets (Matthewson et al., 2008, 45, ex.62b)

say nom-L. det pregnant rep nom-M. ‘Lémya7 said that [she was→ told that] Mary is pregnant’

Matrix questions: speaker addressee Pi-ta-s Inés-qa watuku-sqa? (3) Cuzco Quechua (Faller, 2002, 230)

who-acc-rep Inés-top visit-pst2 ‘Who did Inés visit?’ Speaker expects addressee to base their answer on hearsay evidence

Natasha Korotkova (UCLA) Varieties of evidential shift SuB 19 @ Uni Göttingen 3 / 42 Introduction

Perspective shift: broader view Configurational: something & need to handle Shifted indexicals: very restricted, only in some attitude reports (Schlenker, 1999, 2003; Anand and Nevins, 2004; Anand, 2006; Sudo, 2012; Shklovsky and Sudo, 2014, a.o) Logophors: no shift but also sensitivity to syntactically realized perspective (Charnavel, 2012; Pearson, 2013; Sundaresan, 2012)

Contextual: something we can leave to pragmatics Expressives, appositives: salient individual (Harris and Potts, 2009, 2011) Modals, predicates of taste (if anchored at all to an individual)

Today

EvidentialsNatasha Korotkova (UCLA) Varieties of evidential shift SuB 19 @ Uni Göttingen 4 / 42 Complements of attitude verbs

Roadmap 1 Introduction 2 Complements of attitude verbs Perspective vs. scope Typology Conditions Proposal Further issues 3 Evidential shift in questions Data Previous accounts Proposal 4 Conclusion

Natasha Korotkova (UCLA) Varieties of evidential shift SuB 19 @ Uni Göttingen 5 / 42 Complements of attitude verbs Perspective vs. scope

Framing the discussion

theories of often reduce shifting to the relative scope of the evidential and attitude (Faller, 2002; Matthewson et al., 2008; Murray, 2010; Koev, 2011; Lee, 2013) wide scope: non-shifted reading, speaker-oriented narrow scope: shifted reading, attitude-subject-oriented we need to distinguish between the two notions at least on conceptual grounds (in additional to empirical considerations)

Natasha Korotkova (UCLA) Varieties of evidential shift SuB 19 @ Uni Göttingen 6 / 42 Complements of attitude verbs Typology

Three types

Languages with syntactically embeddable evidentials fall into three

classes:1 2 no evidential shift 3 optional evidential shift obligatory evidential shift Evidential shift cannot be contextual: the behavior is not uniform NB: In some languages, e.g. Abkhaz and Cuzco Quechua, evidentials cannot be embedded under attitude verbs for syntactic reasons

(Korotkova, 2013) .

Natasha Korotkova (UCLA) Varieties of evidential shift SuB 19 @ Uni Göttingen 7 / 42 Complements of attitude verbs Typology

Type I: no shift

Languages: Georgian, Bulgarian (dialect reported in Sauerland and Schenner 2007 and Koev 2011) maria pikrobs rom mama mi-s c’odnia xuti ena (4) Georgian

M.nom think.3sg.pres that father her-dat know.ev 5 language.nom ‘Maria thinks that her father knew five languages’. (i), non-shifted: the speaker was told/infers it. (ii), shifted: #Maria was told/infers it. Continuation “But I know it’s not true” is impossible.

Natasha Korotkova (UCLA) Varieties of evidential shift SuB 19 @ Uni Göttingen 8 / 42 Complements of attitude verbs Typology

Type II: optional shift

Languages: German (Schenner, 2010), Turkish (at least dialect reported in Şener 2011), Bulgarian Marija kaza, che reka-ta e pridosh-l-a. (5) Bulgarian

maria said that river-det be.3sg rise-ev-f ‘Maria said that the river has risen’. (i), non-shifted: the speaker was told/infers it. (ii), shifted: Maria was told/infers it.

Natasha Korotkova (UCLA) Varieties of evidential shift SuB 19 @ Uni Göttingen 9 / 42 Complements of attitude verbs Typology

Type III: obligatory shift

Languages: Japanese, Korean, Standard Tibetan (Garrett, 2001), St’át’imcets (Matthewson et al., 2008) Chelswu-nun pi-ka ecey o-∅-te-la-ko (6) Korean (Lee, 2013, 22, ex.27) malha-yess-e. Chelswu-top rain-nom yesterday fall-pres-dir-decl-comp

say-pst-decl ‘Chelswu said that it was raining yesterday.’ (i), non-shifted: #the speaker has perceptual evidence. (ii), shifted: Chelswu has perceptual evidence.

Natasha Korotkova (UCLA) Varieties of evidential shift SuB 19 @ Uni Göttingen 10 / 42 Complements of attitude verbs Typology

Modals

⊂

Frequent claim: evidentialityshift epistemic modality (Palmer, 1986; Izvorski, 1997; Matthewson et al., 2008) Objection: modals when embedded (Hacquard, 2006, 2010; Stephenson, 2005)

(7) Ptolemy believes that Sun must be turning around Earth but in fact it’s the opposite.

Natasha Korotkova (UCLA) Varieties of evidential shift SuB 19 @ Uni Göttingen 11 / 42 Complements of attitude verbs Typology

Typology of indexicals Three types of languages: 1

2 No indexical shift: English, French, Russian . . . Optional indexical shift: Amharic (Schlenker, 1999, 2003), Mishar Tatar (Podobryaev, 2014), Nez Perce (Deal, 2013), Turkish (Özyildiz,

3 2013) Obligatory indexical shift: Matses, Tamil (Sundaresan, 2012), Uyghur (Shklovsky and Sudo, 2014) Doktor [hasta-lan-di-m] de-di (8) Turkish (Özyildiz, 2013)

doctor sick-pass-pst-1sg say-pst.3sg (i), non-shifted: ‘The doctor said that I got sick.’ (ii), shifted: ‘The doctor said that the doctor got sick.’

Natasha Korotkova (UCLA) Varieties of evidential shift SuB 19 @ Uni Göttingen 12 / 42 Complements of attitude verbs Conditions

Distribution of embedded evidentials X X ‘say’XX ‘think’ ‘know’ Bulgarian X * X Georgian X X* German X * Japanese X * Korean XX** Mbyá XXX** Tibetan * Turkish soo-da sollen Data sources: Bulgarian (Sauerland and Schenner, 2007), Georgian (Korotkova, 2012), Japanese (reportative , Sauerland and Schenner, 2007), German ( , Schenner, 2009), Mbyá (Thomas forth., Guillaume Thomas p.c.), Tibetan (Garrett, 2001) and Turkish (Şener, 2011) (cf. Sauerland and Schenner, 2007, 14, chart 42)

Natasha Korotkova (UCLA) Varieties of evidential shift SuB 19 @ Uni Göttingen 13 / 42 Complements of attitude verbs Conditions

Distribution of indexical shift say Language Predicatesay Aghem say, think, consider Amharic say say, think Japanese say, think a.m.o. Korean personsay indexicals: , adv. indexicals: Mishar Tatar say/tell, thinka.m.o. Navajo say, tell, want Nez Perce say Slave say Tamil say, believe, want Telugu Turkish say , other speech-derived verbs Uyghur all attitude predicates Zazaki

The chart adapted from Sundaresan (2012, 244) (adapted from Anand 2006), with addition of Japanese (Sudo, 2012), Korean (Park, 2014), Mishar Tatar (Podobryaev, 2014), Nez Perce (Deal, 2013), Turkish (Gültekin Şener and Şener, 2011; Özyildiz, 2013) Natasha Korotkova (UCLA) Varieties of evidential shift SuB 19 @ Uni Göttingen 14 / 42 Complements of attitude verbs Conditions

NotArkadas-im-a just attitudes?gore, sinav-dan kal-mis-im (9) Turkish [Evidentials] friend-1s.poss-dat according, exam-abl stay-rep/pst-1s ‘According to my friend, I failed the exam’ (i), non-shifted: I have reported evidence for that.’ *(ii), shifted: My friend has reported evidence for that. Mary-niyoruto, John-ga watashi-o suki. (10) Japanese [Indexicals] Mary-according.to, John-nom I-acc like (i), non-shifted: ‘According to Mary, John likes me.’ (ii), shifted: *‘According to Mary,spored John likes Mary’.

Potential exception:spored Bulgarian ‘according to’ can license evidential shift Potential solution: only refers to reports and can be an

Natashaattitude Korotkova construction (UCLA) in disguiseVarieties of evidential shift SuB 19 @ Uni Göttingen 15 / 42 Complements of attitude verbs Proposal

Core idea

Structural analogies between evidentials and indexicals Parallel #1: typology Parallel #2: distribution in embedded contexts Parallel #3: no shift without an attitude operator ⇓

The two should be analyzed along similar lines A similar idea was first formulated by Sauerland and Schenner (2007)

Natasha Korotkova (UCLA) Varieties of evidential shift SuB 19 @ Uni Göttingen 16 / 42 Complements of attitude verbs Proposal

How to shift indexicals I

Standard Kaplanian semantics: indexicals are special elements sensitive to context, and there is only one matrix context

Main1 ingredients Attitude verbs introduce a new context: a formal different than

2 sets of propositions Shiftable indexicals are able to pick it up

Schlenker (1999, 2003): semantics of indexicals is not uniform across languages cross-linguistic variation is in the : some are rigid and refer to matrix context only (English), some are more flexible and can refer to other contexts (similar treatment in von Stechow 2002)

Natasha Korotkova (UCLA) Varieties of evidential shift SuB 19 @ Uni Göttingen 17 / 42 Complements of attitude verbs Proposal

How to shift indexicals II

Anand (2006); Anand and Nevins (2004) (refined by Sudo (2012); Shklovsky and Sudo (2014)): semantics of indexicals is uniform across languages some languages have context-overwriting operators, aka monsters in their lexicon that shift everything context-sensitive in their scope cross-linguistic variation stems from whether or not monsters are present in the lexicon

Why monsters in Zazaki (Anand, 2006; Anand and Nevins, 2004), Japanese (Sudo, 2012), Korean (Park, 2014) and Nez Perce (Deal, 2013) indexicals within some domain shift together or do not shift at all cannot be captured if they all shift independently

Natasha Korotkova (UCLA) Varieties of evidential shift SuB 19 @ Uni Göttingen 18 / 42 Complements of attitude verbs Proposal

How to shift evidentials

Sauerland and Schenner (2007): a Schlenkerian approach to evidential shift Criticism: overgeneration: unable to capture conditioned evidential shift in German: (semi)-factives favour the shifted reading, predicates of doubt and denial favour the non-shifted reading not all constructions and attitude predicates license evidentials no actual parallels in the distribution of indexicals and evidentials New proposal: as with indexicals, evidential shift is also done by monsters

Natasha Korotkova (UCLA) Varieties of evidential shift SuB 19 @ Uni Göttingen 19 / 42 Complements of attitude verbs Further issues

Speech verbs

say Speech verbs are special in other respects: Embedded imperatives (Kaufmann 2014): under in English, under ‘say’ and ‘propose’ in colloquial German, under predicates describing directive speech acts in Korean, Japanese, Slovenian Root phenomena (Hooper and Thompson, 1973; Heycock, 2005): more likely to be licensed under speech verbs, e.g. distribution of V2 in German Discourse adverbials: more likely to appear under speech verbs

Natasha Korotkova (UCLA) Varieties of evidential shift SuB 19 @ Uni Göttingen 20 / 42 Complements of attitude verbs Further issues

Bottom line

many constructions are able to refer to non-matrix contexts they are licensed in similar environments but not any attitude our theory needs to account for that in a coherent way, e.g. embedded speech acts (Sundaresan 2012, Krifka forth.)

Natasha Korotkova (UCLA) Varieties of evidential shift SuB 19 @ Uni Göttingen 21 / 42 Evidential shift in questions

Roadmap 1 Introduction 2 Complements of attitude verbs Perspective vs. scope Typology Conditions Proposal Further issues 3 Evidential shift in questions Data Previous accounts Proposal 4 Conclusion

Natasha Korotkova (UCLA) Varieties of evidential shift SuB 19 @ Uni Göttingen 22 / 42 Evidential shift in questions Data

Evidentials in questions I

Evidentials vary a great deal within and across languages, hence different analyzes One instance of variation: evidential shift in declaratives Interpetations in questions almost do not vary: striking in view of the above observations Similarities between evidentials with otherwise not always uniform properties: Cheyenne (Murray, 2010), Cuzco Quechua (Faller, 2002), German (Faller, 2004), Korean (Lim, 2010), St’át’imcets (Matthewson et al., 2008), Tibetan (Garrett, 2001)

Natasha Korotkova (UCLA) Varieties of evidential shift SuB 19 @ Uni Göttingen 23 / 42 Evidential shift in questions Data

Evidentials in questions II → Observation Evidentials shift in matrix questions: speaker addressee John-i na-lul po-te-la (11) Korean (Lim, 2010, 35-36, ex.44) a.Given my perceptual evidence [Declarative] John-John-inom I-na-lulacc see-po-tedir-nya?-decl ‘ , John saw me.’ b.Given your perceptual evidence [Question] John-nom I-acc see-dir-q ‘ , did John see me?’

Desideratum for a theory Differentiate indexicals and evidentials despite their commonalities in declarativesNatasha Korotkova (UCLA) Varieties of evidential shift SuB 19 @ Uni Göttingen 24 / 42 Evidential shift in questions Previous accounts

Murray (2010, 2012), based on Cheyenne

The1 upshot

2 Questions introduce a new context Evidentials unlike pure indexicals can pick it up

Prediction: indexicals in indexical-shifting languages should be able to shift in questions. Prediction not borne out:

Cross-linguistic generalization Shifty indexicals don’t shift in questions, matrix or embedded: Japanese (Sudo, 2012), Korean, Turkish

Natasha Korotkova (UCLA) Varieties of evidential shift SuB 19 @ Uni Göttingen 25 / 42 Evidential shift in questions Previous accounts

Shifty indexicals in questions Turkish personal and adverbial indexicals shift in attitude reports (Özyildiz, 2013) but not in questions sev-er mi-yim? (12) Context: A friend is talking about turnips, I ask: [Personal] like-aor pol.q-cop.1sg (i), non-shifted: ‘Do I like them?’ (ii), shifted: *‘Do you like them?’ (13) Context: Natasha is in Paris, Meaghan is Los Angeles. Natasha is talking Junaboutbura-da Jun butmi Meaghanoku-yor? does not know him and asks: ‘Does he study here?’ [Adverbial] Jun here-loc pol.q read-pres.prog (i), non-shifted, speaker’s ‘here’: ‘Jun studies in LA’. (ii), shifted, Natasha’s ‘here’: #‘Jun studies in Paris’. Natasha Korotkova (UCLA) Varieties of evidential shift SuB 19 @ Uni Göttingen 26 / 42 Evidential shift in questions Previous accounts

Lim (2010, 2011); Lim and Lee (2012), based on Korean

The upshot: evidentials are monsters Evidentials manipulate contexts: the author parameter shifts to addressee 1 Prediction # 1: If evidentials are monsters, monsters are licensed in questions. Then indexicals in indexical-shifting languages should be able to shift in questions.

2 Prediction not borne out. Prediction # 2: If evidentials are monsters, indexicals in indexical-shifting languages should be able to shift in their scope. Prediction not borne out.

Natasha Korotkova (UCLA) Varieties of evidential shift SuB 19 @ Uni Göttingen 27 / 42 Evidential shift in questions Previous accounts

Shifty indexicals under evidentials

Cross-linguistic generalization Evidentials do not license indexical shift: Japanese, Korean, Turkish

(14)(ben) hastalan- Turkish mis-im Context: I spoke to my father . . . I hear I get.sick-evid-1sg I hear (i), non-shifted: ‘I got sick, ’. (ii), shifted: #‘My father got sick, ’.

Natasha Korotkova (UCLA) Varieties of evidential shift SuB 19 @ Uni Göttingen 28 / 42 Evidential shift in questions Previous accounts

Semantics?

Observation Evidential shift in questions is obligatory: speaker-anchored readings not available

Current proposals: evidential shift is configurational, governed by semantics Contrast: optional shift of expressive content, governed by pragmatics Given the specific type of evidence I, the speaker, But:have, what tell would me whether it mean or for not an P evidential to not shift in questions? Rough paraphrase: . → Standard pragmatics of questions: sincere inquiries for new information Speaker, if sincere, is not aware of evidence they have

Natasha Korotkova (UCLA) Varieties of evidential shift SuB 19 @ Uni Göttingen 29 / 42 Evidential shift in questions Proposal

Interlude: evidentials are ‘de se’ ‘de se’ constraint Evidentials are obligatorily ‘de se’: having some type of evidence is a self-ascription; independently noticed by McCready (2011)

evidentials are licensed in Gettier scenarios where agents are mistaken about their perception having evidence is always up to an individual: it cannot be challenged or denied los-anZeles-Si metro-s axal-i haz-i gauxavniat (15) Georgian a. I was told LA-in metro-gen new-nom line-nom construct.3pl.s.ev ‘They constructed a new metro line in Los Angeles, ’. b. #. That’s not true, you didn’t hear it. Natasha Korotkova (UCLA) Varieties of evidential shift SuB 19 @ Uni Göttingen 30 / 42 Evidential shift in questions Proposal

Pragmatics! additionally ‘de se’ constraint: ban on speaker-anchored readings in questions no need to restrain semantics evidential shift: garden variety of pragmatic shift in questions

(16) Other things that can be used this way a. Expressives: Did you get the damn job? b. Discourse adverbials: Frankly, when will you finish the paper? c. Certain logophors d. . . . and counting. much in line with syntacticized pragmatic account of Speas and Tenny (2003) Natashacontra Korotkova operator-based (UCLA) accountVarieties of of evidential McCready shift (2007)SuB 19 @ Uni Göttingen 31 / 42 Evidential shift in questions Proposal

Big picture

Interrogative flip Epiphenomenal and is due to pragmatics

Expected availability and pervasiveness of evidential shift in questions Unexpected but explained obligatory evidential shift in questions With many other things, flip is optional With evidentials, mandatory due to the independent ‘de se’ constraint

lack of indexical shift in questions Unexpected why monsters are not licensed in questions Restating the problem and under ‘ask’?

Natasha Korotkova (UCLA) Varieties of evidential shift SuB 19 @ Uni Göttingen 32 / 42 Conclusion

Roadmap 1 Introduction 2 Complements of attitude verbs Perspective vs. scope Typology Conditions Proposal Further issues 3 Evidential shift in questions Data Previous accounts Proposal 4 Conclusion

Natasha Korotkova (UCLA) Varieties of evidential shift SuB 19 @ Uni Göttingen 33 / 42 Conclusion

Configurational Contextual Shifted indexicals Expressives, appositives Logophors Possibly: modals, PPT

Third type Evidentials configurational in attitude reports contextual in questions

Natasha Korotkova (UCLA) Varieties of evidential shift SuB 19 @ Uni Göttingen 34 / 42 Acknowledements

This work has greatly benefitedThank from comments you! and discussion with Yael Sharvit and Dominique Sportiche, Maria Aloni, Pranav Anand, Lisa Bylinina, Jesse Harris, Vincent Homer, Roumyana Pancheva, Hazel Pearson, Johan Rooryck, Philippe Schlenker, Benjamin Spector, Ed Stabler, Igor Yanovich, and audience at Institut Jean Nicod. I thank my language consultants, and especially Nana Dekanosidze for help with Georgian, Deniz Özyildiz for help with Turkish, Roumyana Pancheva and Vesela Simeonova with Bulgarian, Yasutada Sudo wih Japanese, and Yun Kim and Suyeon Yun with Korean. All errors are mine.

Natasha Korotkova (UCLA) Varieties of evidential shift SuB 19 @ Uni Göttingen 35 / 42 ReferencesI

Aikhenvald, A. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford: OUP. Anand, P. (2006). De de se. Ph. D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Anand, P. and A. NevinsSon (2004). propre Shifty operators in changing contexts. In R. B. Young (Ed.), Proceedings of SALT 14, pp. 20–37. Charnavel, I. (2012). , exemption and logophoricity. Ms, UCLA. Şener, N. (2011). Semantics and Pragmatics of Evidentials in Turkish. Ph. D. thesis, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Deal, A. R. (2013). Nez Perce embedded indexicals. In H. Greene (Ed.), Proceedings of SULA 7, Amherst. GLSA. To appear. Faller, M. (2002). Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Ph. D. thesis, Stanford. Faller, M. (2004). The deictic core of ‘non-experienced past’ in Cuzco Quechua. Journal of Semantics 21(1), 45–85. Garrett, E. J. (2001). Evidentiality and Assertion in Tibetan. Ph. D. thesis, UCLA. Natasha Korotkova (UCLA) Varieties of evidential shift SuB 19 @ Uni Göttingen 36 / 42 ReferencesII Gültekin Şener, N. and S. Şener (2011). Null subjects and indexicality in Tukish and Uyghur. In Proceedings of WAFL 7. Hacquard, V. (2006). Aspects of modality. Ph. D. thesis, MIT. Hacquard, V. (2010). On the event relativity of modal auxiliaries. Natural Language Semantics 18(1), 79–114. Harris, J. A. and C. Potts (2009). Perspective-shifting with appositives and ex- pressives. Linguistics and Philosophy 32(6), 523–552. Harris, J. A. and C. Potts (2011). Predicting perspectival orientation for apposi- tives. In Proceedings of CLS 45. Heycock, C. (2005). Embedded root phenomena. In M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell. Hooper, J. and S. Thompson (1973). On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4(4), 465–497. Izvorski, R. (1997). The present perfect as an epistemic modal. In Proceedings of SALT XII, pp. 222–239. Natasha Korotkova (UCLA) Varieties of evidential shift SuB 19 @ Uni Göttingen 37 / 42 III Kaufmann, M. (2014). Embedded imperatives across languages: too rare to expect, too frequent to ban. Handout for presentation at Colloquium Stony Brook, April 4, 2014. Koev, T. (2011). Evidentiality and temporal distance learning. In Proceedings of SALT XXI, pp. 115–134. Korotkova, N. (2012). Evidentiality in the Georgian tense and aspect system. Unpublished manuscipt, UCLA. Korotkova, N. (2013). Embedding across evidentials across languages. A talk given at DIP Colloquium, ILLC, University of Amsterdam.http://amor.cms.hu-berlin. Krifka,de/~h2816i3x/Publications/Krifka_EmbeddingSpeechActs.pdf M. (Forthcoming). Embedding speech acts. In T. Roeper and M. Speas (Eds.), Recursion in language and cognition. . Lee, J. (2013). Temporal constraints on the meaning of evidentiality. Natural Language Semantics 21, 1–41. Lim, D. (2011). Evidentials in : A case study of Korean. In I. e. a. Reich (Ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 15, pp. 419–433. Natasha Korotkova (UCLA) Varieties of evidential shift SuB 19 @ Uni Göttingen 38 / 42 ReferencesIV Lim, D. and C. Lee (2012). Perspective shifts of Korean evidentials and the effect of contexts. In Proceedings of SALT 22, pp. 26–42. Lim, D. S. (2010). Evidentials as interrogatives: a case study from Korean. Ph. D. thesis, USC. Matthewson, L., H. Davis, and H. Rullman (2008). Evidentials as epistemic modals: Evidence from St’át’imcets. In J. van Craenenbroeck (Ed.), Linguistic Variation Yearbook, Volume 7. John Benjamins.Sinn und Bedeutung 11 McCready, E. (2007). Context shifting in questions and elsewhere. Inhttp:// E. Puig- Waldmullersemanticsarchive.net/Archive/TAyYTI1N/evidMcc.pdf (Ed.), Proceedings of , pp. 433–447. McCready, E. (2011). What is evidence in natural language. . Murray, S. (2010). Evidentiality and the Structure of Speech Acts. Ph. D. thesis, Rutgers. Murray,http://conf.ling.cornell.edu/sem/NASSLLI.pdf S. (2012). The indexical component of evidentiality. At a workshop “Meaning as Use: Indexality and Expressives” during NASSLLI 2012 in Austin, . Natasha Korotkova (UCLA) Varieties of evidential shift SuB 19 @ Uni Göttingen 39 / 42 ReferencesV Özyildiz, D. (2013). When I is not me: A preliminary case study of shifted index- icals in Turkish. Unpublished manuscript, École Normale Supérieure.caki Palmer, F. (1986). Mood and modality. CUP. Park, Y. (2014). Indexicals and the long-distance reflexive in Korean. In Proceedings of SALT 24. Forthcoming. Pearson, H. (2013). The sense of self: topics in the semantics of textitde se expressions. Ph. D. thesis, Harvard. Podobryaev, A. (2014). Persons, Imposters, and Monsters. Ph. D. thesis, MIT. Sauerland, U. and M. Schenner (2007). Embedded evidentials in Bulgarian. In E. Puig-Waldmuller (Ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11, pp. 495–509. Schenner, M. (2009). Semantics of evidentials: German reportative modals. In C. C. Sylvia Blaho and B. L. Bruyn (Eds.), Proceedings of ConSOLE XVI, Leiden: Universiteit Leiden, pp. 179–198. Schenner, M. (2010). Evidentials in complex sentences: Foundational issues and data from German and Turkish. In T. Peterson and U. Sauerland (Eds.), Evidence from evidentials, pp. 183–220. Vancouver: University of British Columbia. Natasha Korotkova (UCLA) Varieties of evidential shift SuB 19 @ Uni Göttingen 40 / 42 ReferencesVI Schlenker, P. (1999). Propositional attitudes and indexicality : a cross-categorial approach. Ph. D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Schlenker, P. (2003). A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy 26(1), 29–120. Shklovsky, K. and Y. Sudo (2014). The syntax of monsters. Linguistic Inquiry 45(3), 381–402. Speas, M. and C. Tenny (2003). Configurational properties of point of view roles. In A. M. DiSciullo (Ed.), Asymmetry in Grammar, pp. 315–343. John Benjamins. Stephenson, T. (2005). Assessor sensitivity:phi-features Epistemic modals and predicates of personal taste. New Work on Modality, MITWPL 51. Sudo, Y. (2012). On the semantics of on pronouns. Ph. D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Sundaresan, S. (2012). Context and (Co) in the syntax and its interfaces. Ph. D. thesis, University of Stuttgart and University of Tromso.

Natasha Korotkova (UCLA) Varieties of evidential shift SuB 19 @ Uni Göttingen 41 / 42 References VII

http://web.mit.edu/gthomas/www/Embedded%20Imperatives% Thomas,20in%20Mbya.pdf G. (To appear). Embedded imperatives in Mbyá. In Proceedings of NELS 43. . von Stechow, A. (2002). Feature deletion under semantic : tense, person, and mood under verbal quantifiers. In Proceedings of NELS 33.

Natasha Korotkova (UCLA) Varieties of evidential shift SuB 19 @ Uni Göttingen 42 / 42